quantumfaith
Active Member
Excellent Post Skandelon!!!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Excellent Post Skandelon!!!
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
The account of the life of Joseph shows us a model of compatiblism which clearly shows that God foreordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory.
At the end of the ordeal between Joseph and his brothers, we see this familiar statement:
In his statement to them we see the following:
1. What the brothers did to Joseph was, in fact, evil. There is no way around it, plotting to kill or sell your brother into slavery is indeed evil.
2. The brothers are culpable for their evil deed(s). The passages before this show that they are worried that Joseph will punish them--and in their worrying they demonstrate their culpability. Joseph calls what they did "evil" and shows them to be culpable.
3. Human responsibility is in full view. Who threw Joseph into the pit? The brothers. God didn't actively throw him into the pit--yet it was God's will for him to be in the pit.
4. There is a "double intent" in the actions of that day. Notice that it doesn't say "God used it for good." In this episode, there is a displayed intent for God to have Joseph thrown into the pit. The brothers' evil intent threw Joseph into the pit and yet God's good intent also threw Joseph into the pit. The brothers' intent was evil; God's intent was good. The brothers committed the act of their own free and sinful wills.
We clearly have and example here of God foreordaining the free, evil, and sinful actions of the brothers (throwing Joseph into the pit). But, in the same action--the brothers' action--we see God doing good.
In reality, if God does not ordain Joseph's sale into slavery, the known world will likely starve to death in the coming famine--including Jacob and his sons. If God does not "throw" Joseph into the pit, Israel will never be in Egypt and there will be no "Exodus" to fulfill God's promise to Abraham. If there is no Israel and no Exodus there is, ultimately, no Messiah and without a Messiah, there is no forgiveness of sin.
Make no mistake, Joseph is, really, the person on whom the entire biblical plan turns.
Interestingly enough, the brothers sought to eliminate from all possibility the fulfillment of Joseph's dreams (of them bowing down before him). But by their own actions they actually fulfilled his dreams. What is more, though they didn't know it, by their own actions--which again were evil and sinful--they actually provided for their own survival.
God does intend "good" through the sinful actions of others.
The brothers acted as "free moral agents" (though bound by their overt and unmistakable sinful natures which were on display for everyone to see). God ordained (allowed) their actions.
In this case, though, even if God is the first-cause causing the brothers' to desire to throw Joseph into the pit...why is that a problem? Cannot God the Creator do what He wishes with His creation?
The Archangel
At the end of the ordeal between Joseph and his brothers, we see this familiar statement:
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today (Genesis 50:20 ESV)
In this passage Joseph is addressing his brothers reassuring them that he will not punish them for their actions against him. The reason he would not punish them-though he had every right and every opportunity as the Prime Minister of Egypt--is because he had faith that God knew what He was doing.
In his statement to them we see the following:
1. What the brothers did to Joseph was, in fact, evil. There is no way around it, plotting to kill or sell your brother into slavery is indeed evil.
2. The brothers are culpable for their evil deed(s). The passages before this show that they are worried that Joseph will punish them--and in their worrying they demonstrate their culpability. Joseph calls what they did "evil" and shows them to be culpable.
3. Human responsibility is in full view. Who threw Joseph into the pit? The brothers. God didn't actively throw him into the pit--yet it was God's will for him to be in the pit.
4. There is a "double intent" in the actions of that day. Notice that it doesn't say "God used it for good." In this episode, there is a displayed intent for God to have Joseph thrown into the pit. The brothers' evil intent threw Joseph into the pit and yet God's good intent also threw Joseph into the pit. The brothers' intent was evil; God's intent was good. The brothers committed the act of their own free and sinful wills.
We clearly have and example here of God foreordaining the free, evil, and sinful actions of the brothers (throwing Joseph into the pit). But, in the same action--the brothers' action--we see God doing good.
In reality, if God does not ordain Joseph's sale into slavery, the known world will likely starve to death in the coming famine--including Jacob and his sons. If God does not "throw" Joseph into the pit, Israel will never be in Egypt and there will be no "Exodus" to fulfill God's promise to Abraham. If there is no Israel and no Exodus there is, ultimately, no Messiah and without a Messiah, there is no forgiveness of sin.
Make no mistake, Joseph is, really, the person on whom the entire biblical plan turns.
Interestingly enough, the brothers sought to eliminate from all possibility the fulfillment of Joseph's dreams (of them bowing down before him). But by their own actions they actually fulfilled his dreams. What is more, though they didn't know it, by their own actions--which again were evil and sinful--they actually provided for their own survival.
God does intend "good" through the sinful actions of others.
The brothers acted as "free moral agents" (though bound by their overt and unmistakable sinful natures which were on display for everyone to see). God ordained (allowed) their actions.
In this case, though, even if God is the first-cause causing the brothers' to desire to throw Joseph into the pit...why is that a problem? Cannot God the Creator do what He wishes with His creation?
The Archangel
quantumfaith
Active Member
Yup, you never disappoint.
I have already affirmed that God either determines or else allow things to come to pass, he knows all things still either way, and causes all thing to work out according to His power/plans/purposes![/quote]
seems that you again are not able to see that our ultimate freedom is to allow God to fulfill His will in our lives, thast His ways/plans are far beyond my own, and always better...
prophet Isaiah and Apostle paul saw God as being fully Sovereign, shouldn't you?
preacher4truth
Active Member
Some interesting points.
Non-cal theologies are literally saying "that is unfair!"
This is the basis of their entire problem, and is the foundation to which their theology resides; mans reason of what fairness is. Everything must then be understood within this light, or to them, it cannot be true.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Again the fallacy--your fallacy--using the word "control." Biblical sovereignty does not presume God is in control of human choice.
You tout yourself as a former Calvinist and you claim to have a great understanding of what we believe. You have yet to demonstrate it.
The Archangel
Why is it ever wrong to have the Lord be in absolute control over all things?
can't I trust him to be able to work all things out better than I can, or is it somehow that I want to share in His glory?
isn't "free will" salvation in a sense trying to share in His glory?
preacher4truth
Active Member
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
The word 'control' is used ALL THE TIME by both sides in regard to this point. In fact go HERE
and you will see where you used the word in our previous discussion on this very point. In fact, on this same page glf quoted a long article which explained the differing aspects of divine 'control' (which is often use interchangeably with the term sovereignty). I acknowledged the distinctions of divine control in an earlier post...
If I don't "understand" these matters then why did I write THIS POST years ago? I understand what Calvinists mean by God's sovereignty or 'control.' I think it is just easier to attack me for not understanding than it is for you to answer the obvious objection being raised...
Should I list all the posts here where Calvinists use the word 'control' in regard to God's sovereignty over man's choices? How about a list of scholars who use the word 'control' in regard to this issue? How about YOUR use of the word? Do you really want to go there?
Are you denying the existence of the prince of darkness...The 'authorities and princes of this dark world?'
I'm not claiming the opponent has equality with God, but I'm also not attempting to deny his existence....are you? By denying the opponents 'adequacy' you are not removing the existence and independent nature of the opponent. You are only affirming the power of God over His opponent, something I would never deny. This is much different from the concept that God 'compatibilistically controls' (see above) all agents (including his opponents.....i.e. 'playing both sides of the chess board')
And as the post I linked to above explains, this avoids nothing in a system where God 'controls' your nature... You just push the problem back a step and claim 'control' is the wrong term...accomplishing nothing.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Please, for us less theologically savvy, explain the distinction(s) between, predestination, ordaining, decreeing, fore ordaining vis a vis God's Sovereignty. And why anyone who does not hold to the calvinistic position possesses a "deficient" theology (not your word I don't think). Why is one wrong to see "compatibly" that God can possess complete sovereignty and still allow man "freedom" and responsibility (of course extending beyond the standard calvinistic idea of freedom of his nature) a nature that apparently was decreed.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Allow me to repost an earlier post in regard to compatibilism:
That is the position you seem to be defending, called compatiblism. I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."
It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.
This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.
This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).
That is the position you seem to be defending, called compatiblism. I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."
It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.
This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.
This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
If you will read the post you linked to, you will see that I said this: "ultimate control." And, the context is a disease like cancer, though I did indeed reference other evils including rape.
The "ultimate control" is that God is superintending the free actions of other people in instances like rape and murder. And, in the instance of cancer (which caused his death on May 1 of this year) God intended, super or otherwise, his disease.
The Potter may do whatsoever He will to the clay.
What you are doing here is trying to take my words out of context. I don't use "control" in the sense that God is in heaven playing a game on His iPhone that controls our actions. You seem to think that by merely using the word "control," even though I did qualify it with the word "ultimate" that I mean that God is controlling us like robots or marionettes. You know, I mean no such thing.
What you wrote is a further demonstration that you don't understand. But then, really, your goal is not to seek to understand our position. You goal is to defeat our position. That's fine...this is a debate site. But, you should at least be honest about your intent.
God does indeed ordain whatever comes to pass. However, and I think you know this, to equate "ordain" with "cause" is to be insincere with the intent of the Westminster Divines and those of us who do, in fact, make a clear distinction because we find the distinction clearly in scripture.
In the post referenced, you wrote: "It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God."
As a compatibilist, I do not believe my desires are "decreed by God." I don't believe God is in heaven saying "Thou shalt like alcohol," "thou shalt like promiscuity," or "thou shalt like sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll."
You seem to indicate you think this is what God is doing. If you do indeed think God is doing things this way, it betrays that you think men are "neutral" and have to be impacted by God for either good or evil to be done. Of course, the biblical data is that we are sons of our father Adam and, as such, we bear his fallen nature. We are sinners by nature.
The remainder of what you've written in the link is addressed by what I've already written.
Using the word "control," again is not the same as meaning "control" in the sense of deterministic control.
You seem to want to define my usage and the usage of others to your definition, not our own. You seem to want to tell us what we mean rather than listening to what we mean.
Oh I affirm the existence of Satan and his minions. But, of course, they are not equal to God. Denying "adequacy" does not mean that I reject the existence of the "prince of darkness."
Denying the opponent's adequacy does not remove the existence or independent nature of the opponent. There is no adequate foe for God. There is no foe who could--by the word of his mouth--destroy God. God can do this, though He, for whatever reason chooses not to. No foe can vanquish God, though many attempts are made. Inadequate foes do exist. Inadequate foes do exorcize their nature--but that nature is not independent. No foe of God can act without God's permission. As Luther said "the Devil is God's devil." And I say, along with Luther, "The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure."
Of the outcome of the ages there is no doubt.
Again, you are inserting "control" into a place that it does not belong. You might think it does, but then you're only reading your definitions and understandings into what we say rather than listening to us and allowing us to define our own meanings.
The Archangel
Would you define Free Will as being able to do anything that one pleases to do?
if yes, God can fit that definition, can anyone else though?
I fail to see why allowing God alone as being really sovereign has ANYTHING at all to do with salvation?
As ALL those who are in heaven are there because that is their choice, as being the Elect of God, while ALL in hell freely chose to depart from presense of God...
As my pastor says...
hell is locked from the inside, as no one there wants anything to do with God!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That is the "objection" that EVERYONE admits to feeling when first confronted with the teaching of Calvinism, as explained in the OP. Even Calvinists admit it is a tough pill to swallow. So, you are right, it doesn't appear fair. That is the premise of my OP. Now, follow along.
Given this universal objection to Calvinism's teaching what is the response? How do Calvinists answer this question? They quote Romans 9, just like I said in the OP, and just like you did in you later post. Now, we all should be on the same page.
Let's go over it again:
1. Calvinism seems unfair.
2. Calvinists know it seems unfair but accept it because they believe it is biblical.
3. They base this upon their interpretation of Romans 9
Now, let's move to the next point of the OP to which I said...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No. Read my post you just quoted. I defined my view of free will very clearly in the first two lines...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
And yet in my very first response to you I acknowledge the compatiblistic view of 'control,' and you continue to claim I take your views out of context. What view do you hold if not the compatiblistic view?
Now who is taking others comments out of context? Do you really think that is what I think you believe? I think you are a compatibilist and I acknowledged that from the beginning AA. Now move on...
And yet if you read back through my OP you will see that I qualify the word 'control' with that exact same word. Interesting...
Now can we move on to the point of the OP and move off the tired old, "you just don't understand us" argument?
Then you deny that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass? After all, your desire did 'come to pass,' did it not? Where did it originate if not with God? If in man then How did God come to know of it and how do you maintain the Calvinistic concept of sovereignty?
I affirmed you believed 'compatibilistic control' in my first response. So, are you sure it is not you who is reading something into my responses and intent?
Yes, but do you affirm Satan can act 'independently' from God? Again, I think we both affirm the concept of permissive control, but I'm talking about the origin of Satan's evil desire. Where did it originate?
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Quantumfaith,
First off...this is a really good question.
When we Calvinists (at least most of us, the non-hyper kind) use these words, here is what we intend to convey:
Predestination: This word is usually used in the context of salvation. Generally, we mean that God intended to save some (a limited-atonement or particular-redemption understanding) and actually accomplishes the salvation of those He chose to save.
To say that something is "predestined" outside of a discussion of salvation is, likely, to say that something is going to happen and there is no stopping it.
Ordain: This word is usually used to say that God allows something. Certainly, in one sense, He is the ultimate cause because He has a plan to history and every minute detail. However, in many cases, we say this "ultimate causing" is passive. In the episode with Joseph and his brothers, it is clear that God has a good intention for the brothers' sinful actions while the brothers themselves have an evil intention for their action. In the passage (Genesis 50) God is seen as the ultimate cause, though He does not sin or do evil. He "ordains" that the brothers do evil in order that His ultimate plan be served.
Another way this is explained is this: When God causes something He stands behind it. When God ordains something He stands to the side and allows it to happen. This isn't a perfect description, but it may help some to understand how we use the word.
Decree: This is something that God Himself stands behind and something that will be done. The accomplishing of the decree, however, may be done through free human agents. The death of Christ was decreed--this is almost without argument. Yet God Himself did not drive nails through Christ. And...in another respect every hammer blow was the work of God in some way--but it happened through human agency.
Fore-ordain: We usually use this word to say that God planned for something to happen long ago. The death of Christ was both decreed and foreordained. The throwing of Joseph into the pit was both decreed and foreordained. Foreordination usually refers to something that God allows to happen to fit His plan for history, etc.
Not everyone rejecting Calvinist theology has a "deficient" (not my word) theology. There is orthodoxy in Arminianism (even as a Calvinist, I can say this). But, much "theology" we have today--with roots in both Calvinism and Arminianism--degenerates into unorthodoxy when it gets outside the scope of the Bible. Hence, Arminians sometimes drift into open theism and universalism, and Calvinists drift into strict determinism and hyper-Calvinism.
If you visualize a Venn diagram of two overlapping circles and visualize the left circle as circle "A" and the right circle as circle "C" the overlapping section, the "O" section is orthodoxy. Calvinists and Arminians can share in orthodoxy as long as certain things are affirmed by both. For instance, soteriologically speaking, one is considered orthodox by affirming a penal-substitution atonement and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
To see compatibility in this way is to try to define it in a way that Scripture never does. This is why we suggest it is wrong. Man himself is never really "free" before Christ. He is a slave to his sinful nature. Skandelon and others want to argue for a contra-causal freedom that scripture never affirms. What is more, our sinful nature is not "decreed" in the sense that God is corrupting an otherwise neutral party. Our corruption is a natural consequence of Adam's sin and us being his progeny.
The Archangel
preacher4truth
Active Member
You need to take a few minutes and reread what I've written and address all of it. OK? Thanks.
And, let's get past the part of pretending I'm not debating and other invalid accusations, yes? I've proven your OP is begging the question, and in addition gave you good answers and apology against the objection you have. Fair enough? Good.
Also, don't add words to my mouth OK? Did I say i think it unfair as you claim? Where? Please find this, or, own up, as you affirm is your strong point. And then "let's" talk in facts here, yes, and not in what you thought someone said? You know I've never made such a statement.
Now stay close here, OK?
Just because you say EVERYONE thinks it "unfair" doesn't make it a valid argument on your part, nor does it prove a thing that you've said thus far, nor does it make it truthful, it's merely your opinion, agreed? So your basis there would be what is called subjective. I'll allow an assumption that you know what that means. You do see how that just because you make a statement that it doesn't make your statements true? See?
By the way, you're the only one here I see screaming and kicking and "objecting," as I've stated prior by implication. Please affirm where I am kicking and screaming against His Sovereignty. This is your implication in your OP. It's incorrect.
One more time: Romans 9 speaks against your objections, proving them not only false, but calling them out. Eternally.
I await your admittance to the absurdity of claiming and using bens post as proof you are correct.
Here is what he said:
Your response?
:laugh:
Theres no need to move to your next point, when your premise is faulty, and when "proofs" are based and affirmed in statements like the quotes above. This is done all the while valid, thought out Scripturally accurate arguments against your premise from jesusfan, The Archangel, and myself are ridiculed, construed as attacks (your wording) cast aside as not following debate form, and pretense is made upon the responses being whatever you need it to be, which is a coput on your part.
This is a debate forum, no need for this. Can we debate the facts presented, and not use the above? Such as claiming I've said things I've never said, and the false unfounded accusation posts aren't following some protocol you don't understand?
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status